Re: Improving ALTER TYPE support

I guess I don't understand what one has to do with the other (SRF's
returning records and OUT parameters). I always thought they were exclusive,
could you elaborate?

On 5/24/06, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
>
> Josh Berkus <josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com> writes:
> >> I've been working on a function which returns a setof a composite type.
> >> Everytime I've changed the structure of the returning setof, I've had
> to
> >> change the type accordingly, which current means doing a drop type ...
> >> cascade down to the function. We should allow one of the following:
>
> > Why not go all the way and work out a way to define an SRF return type
> as a
> > part of the function? e.g.
>
> Um, isn't that exactly what the OUT parameter support already gives you,
> ie, an anonymous record type?
>
> regards, tom lane
>